Keeping citizens in the loop

‘Open Letter’ to Mark Ford, appointed CEO of a bigger Watercare and Chair of the ‘Statutory Entity’ Auckland Transport .

cc: ‘Interim’ CEO of Watercare Services Ltd:
Ian Parton –
please ensure that this email is passed on to the Chair and all Directors of Watercare Services Ltd. Thanks.

Dear Mark,

Eighteen months ago, you left your positions as CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, and Chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) as the appointed Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency.

( The unelected appointed body to set up the ‘$UPERCITY’ structure for the corporate takeover of the Auckland region).

Now you are set to go back through this ‘revolving’ corporate door to return as CEO of a far bigger Watercare and Chair of Auckland Transport.

Remember what the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide said on 22 May 2009, when he announced your appointment?

“I am very pleased to be able to announce a transition agency of this calibre,” Mr Hide said.

“Mr Ford is highly respected in his present leadership roles as Chief Executive of Watercare Services Ltd and Chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). He has a strong understanding of Auckland governance and a proven record in managing complex situations and leading high performing teams.

To manage any perception of a conflict of interest,
Mr Ford is to resign from his present positions with Watercare and ARTA. ”

(My underlining).

You were tasked with heading the organisation setting up the $UPERCITY framework – particularly the seven Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) into which 75% of Auckland regional rates are to be paid – then you end up with arguably two of the ‘top jobs’ – CEO of Watercare and Chair of the ‘statutory entity’ – Auckland Transport?

Nice work!

How is this not a major ‘conflict of interest’?

Arguably, you have used your position as the Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) to help ‘feather your own nest’?

Is this not arguably ‘misuse of public office for private gain’ – a form of ‘corrupt practice’?

Particularly when the Directors of Watercare Services arguably ‘your mates,’ (as you have known a number of them for years as CEO of Watercare from 1994 – 2007), appoint you in an uncontested selection?

“This is the most demanding and important corporate assignment in New Zealand. That is why we’ve chosen someone of Mr Ford’s calibre and appointed him as Executive Chairman to ensure he has the powers to fulfil his role effectively.” (Rodney Hide, 22 May 2009)).

If you have such a ‘strong understanding of Auckland governance,’ are so ‘highly respected’, and of such ‘callibre’ – why is it that you appear to consider that the underpinning principles of the Local Government Act 2002 – ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government don’t apply to you?

WHY HAVE YOU NOT YET PROVIDED THE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?

(Please be reminded, you were first asked these questions, by email on 25 June 2010 and invited to reply in person to a Public Meeting held on 5 July 2010, calling for an investigation of the seven United Water New Zealand contracts.

You declined to attend the Public Meeting, and were then asked to provide answers to these questions in the form of an OIA reply on 2 July 2010.

These questions were still not answered.

Remember what you said about ‘transparency’, as published in the NZ Herald on 7 September 2010?

“Mark Ford, who will chair the mega-Auckland Transport CCO responsible for spending about $1.4 billion a year of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money, was relaxed at the possibility of public meetings being part of the statement of corporate intent between the council and the CCO.

“We have got to win over the confidence of the public.

There are various mechanisms – performance service, transparency and a whole series of things,” he said. ”

(My underlining).
Are these just empty ‘weasel words’?

There is, as you know, considerable public interest and concern about the ownership, operation and management, pricing and quality of Auckland water services.

If you do not answer these questions, then, in my considered opinion, you are quite simply, not ‘fit for duty’ because this proves by your practice – you are neither ‘open’ nor ‘transparent’.

I look forward to your prompt, (albeit belated) reply.

A) Information which explains why you, when CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, appointed known water privatiser, ex-Mayor of Papakura, David Hawkins, to the position of Corporate Liaison Manager for Watercare Services in 2000.

B) Information which confirms that you were aware of the Report of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), in 1998, which was critical of a number of key aspects of the ‘Papakura franchise’, signed by David Hawkins as Mayor of Papakura in April 1997:

(These shortcomings were referred to in this recent ‘Regulatory Impact Statement’

“REMOVING BARRIERS TO WATER INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 – REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT:

34. A potential risk is that councils lack expertise in the area of PPPs and other concession arrangements, and that developing such arrangements requires specialist skills. This was suggested in reports by the Auditor-General on the Papakura franchise agreement and the Wellington DBMO arrangement.[1]

35. In Papakura, for example, the Auditor-General noted that:

·the Council relied on limited internal and local expertise when setting up the agreement and it was not reviewed by an external expert;

·the franchise agreement focused on performance indicators relating to price and quality, but indicators for customer service and asset management and development were not well defined; and

·there was a lack of agreement between the parties about how the condition of the infrastructure would be measured over the duration of the franchise – no baseline was established and an asset management plan was not undertaken.

C) Information which explains why you, when CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, appointed Graham Wood, to the position of General Manager Operations of Watercare Services,(in or about 2007), and what steps you took to:

1) Inform all elected representatives that made up the Watercare Shareholders Representative Group (SRG), of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia,

2) Inform the public of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia.

D) Information which explains the role played by David Hawkins and/or Graham Wood (if any) whilst working for Watercare in the securing of any NZ United Water contracts.

E) Information which explains why, on the Watercare Services Ltd website, when you were CEO, there was no section which covered the Watercare Shareholders Group, to make the following information publicly available: SRG meeting minutes; SRG reports ; information about which elected representatives were actually members of the SRG, and the like.

F) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with:

1) United Water;
2) Veolia Water,
3) Past or current members of the World Bank, including, but not limited to David Shand, the Head of the Rates Inquiry and one of the three Commissioners on the Royal commission of Inquiry into Auckland Regional Governance

G) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with Veolia Transport, who have the contract with ARTA (of which you were Chair since 2007) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network.

In 2004 Veolia Transport Auckland Limited was contracted to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network. The contract has subsequently been extended through to 2014.

Veolia Transport, as a leading private operator of public transport, manage over 2.63 billion trips per year globally, thereby decreasing traffic congestion, combating climate change and avoiding over 4.1 million tons of Co2.

Veolia Transport is part of Veolia Environnement the world’s leading environmental services company.

H) Information which confirms your position, as Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency, on the request for a ‘full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts’ as requested in the following:

Petition 2008/60, presented by Su’a William Sio, on 9 December 2009:

“Requesting that the House of Representatives do not implement any legislative changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which would make it easier to privatise water services via changes to ‘contracting out’, and ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) provisions, until a full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts in New Zealand has been undertaken.”

(This Petition is still an ‘Item of Business’ before the Local Government and Environment Select Committee – I checked on 8 October 2010.)
______________________________

People want to know that valued public services will be protected and that effort will be rewarded. Business wants to know that competitiveness will be maintained and that consumer confidence will be supported.

In the short term, National’s tax package will give households confidence and some cash in their back pockets to keep the economy going and to pay down debt.

In the longer term, our tax package encourages people to invest in their own skills and make best use of their abilities, because they get to keep more of any higher wages they earn. It encourages them to look for and to take up better and higher-paying jobs that make more use of their skills.”

How is taking cash out of the back pockets of those who can least afford it, while giving tax cuts to the wealthy – ‘responsible reform’ John Key?

I protested against the ‘Rogernomic$’ Labour Government’s dropping income tax rates for the rich, and introduction of GST back in 1985.

Twenty-five years later – I’m protesting against this ‘Rogernomic$’ National Government’s dropping income tax rates for the rich, and increasing the GST rate from 12.5% to 15% in 2010.

Isn’t it high time for a review of ‘Rogernomic$’?
To check the FACTS against the mantra?

Who has benefitted?
Where have our public monies and public resources gone?

During this Auckland Mayoral campaign – I have yet to meet one ratepayer whose rates have gone DOWN since the ‘Rogernomic$’ local government ‘business model’ reforms wrecked Auckland, and made it ‘dysfunctional’.

Seems that what is good for big business and the very wealthy isn’t good for the public majority.

I think it’s high time we ‘rolled back Rogernomic$’.
Enough of this ‘war on the poor’!

Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially-recognised Public Watchdog on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”

The ‘Organisational Flow Chart’ PROVES the corporate structure for the $UPERCITY cannot serve the public or the public interest!

The underpinning $UPERCITY legislation has set up the corporate structure for the Auckland region to be run ‘like a business, by business – for business’.

The Auckland $UPERCITY ‘organisational flow chart’ visually shows in a way that words cannot describe, how this corporate structure will work.

This Auckland $UPERCITY ‘organisational flow chart’ proves how empty are the words of those Mayoral candidates who are effectively promising that this corporate structure can be made to serve the public and the public interest.

(This ‘$UPERCITY ‘organisational flow chart’ was filmed on Thursday 27 May 2010, after I addressed a meeting of the Rodney District Council.)

It doesn’t matter how ‘well-meaning’, personable or approachable the other Mayoral candidates are – the key question is – are they opposed to the $UPERCITY and the mechanism for this corporate takeover – the unelected, unproven Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model into which 75% of Auckland regional rates are to be paid?

75% of YOUR rates will be controlled by appointed businesspeople that YOU never elected, who will be running 7 CCOs you never voted for, under the $UPERCITY corporate structure for which YOUR lawful democratic right to a binding poll (Local Government Act 2002, s24’Reorganisation Proposal’ Schedule 3, s 49 ‘Poll must be held’) – was railroaded over in another ‘Rogernomic$ blitzkreig’

The fact is that none of the ‘leading’ Mayoral candidates is opposed to the CCO model, although CCOs have never been subject to any ‘cost benefit analysis’ which proves their ‘cost-effectiveness’ for the public majority.

We are talking about up to $28 billion worth of public assets being placed under this ‘commercialised’ /’business’ CCO model.

Where is the ‘due diligence’? ‘Prudent stewardship’? Fiscal responsibility’?

How come a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ on the cost-effectiveness of the CCO model for the public majority has never been carried out by:

The Royal Commission on Auckland regional governance.
The Office of the Auditor-General.
The Department of Internal Affairs.
The Auckland Transition Agency.
None of the 8 Councils in the Auckland region.
The NZ Treasury.

This underpinnng Auckland $UPERCITY legislation must be repealed.

Look how billion$ of public assets owned at central government level were stolen off us under ‘Rogernomic$ Mark I’!

The 1984 – 1987 Labour Government got away with ‘Rogernomic$ Mark I’ partly because of the lid that was put on the fightback by Labour Party trade unionists who said ‘ we can’t embarrass a Labour Government’.

This time, unfortunately, some union leaders are seeing these elections as a battle between ‘left’ and ‘right’ – when it is between the public and corporates, and those who serve their interests.

Why working people or their Unions would support a corporate takeover, by supporting those candidates who are not opposed to this corporate takeover is difficult to grasp.

It is time to think politically ‘outside the square’, organise and take action which has never been done before – or there will be nothing left for the kids.

The first step is to give the Government which railroaded through this Auckland $UPERCITY legislation a message that they CANNOT ignore!

If all those who are opposed to the Auckland $UPERCITY vote for the only candidate with the proven track record as a fighter defending the public and the public interest – vote Public Watchdog Penny Bright for Mayor – it will be a landslide.

Opposed to the $UPERCITY?

Support the principle that – “It is the will of the people that is the basis of the authority of Government’?
Support the principle that there should be “No taxation without representation”?

You complained that only three Super City mayoral candidates, Len Brown, John Banks and Andrew Williams were invited to speak at the breakfast.

You stated that you asked the Events Manager Rebecca Seymour-East if you could speak. You said she advised you that it was too late for you to be a speaker but you could register and pay to attend the breakfast.

You informed the Commission that you followed the process but were denied access to the breakfast.

The Commission acknowledges your statement that you felt angry and humiliated.

You claimed that Rebecca Seymour-East has refused to give you any reasons as to why you were denied entry.”

“To advance the first element of your complaint of unlawful discrimination you would need to show that the group of mayoral candidates that was not invited to speak at the breakfast shared a common factor covered by the prohibited grounds of the HRA.”

EVIDENCE THAT THIS AUCKLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ‘MEET THE (MAYORAL) CANDIDATES BREAKFAST MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

Have your say about this super city. Nominations for the first ever Auckland Super City Mayor have officially closed and now it’s up to you to decide who gets the job. The Auckland Chamber of Commerce invites you to hear from three of the most prominent candidates at a special informative breakfast.

Len Brown, John Banks and Andrew Williams will square off and promote their policies for a greater Auckland as the city’s history is written before your eyes. There will be a two-course plated breakfast, not to mention plenty of food for thought.

If you are interested, undecided, or have a strong opinion of your own, this is your opportunity to get involved. The first Auckland Super City elections will be remembered in years to come, so join us at this eventful breakfast and be part of Auckland’s history. Register now to avoid disappointment.

To register for this event please email events@chamber.co.nz.

This event will be held in the Grand Tearoom at the Heritage Hotel.
Event author’ avatar
Event listed by Chamber of Commerce
_____________________________________________

(My underlining).
______________________________________________

A) Please provide me with a copy of the invitation from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce to Auckland Mayoral candidates, requesting that they address the ‘Meet the (Mayoral) Candidates” 9 September 2010 breakfast meeting.

B) Please advise me on what lawful grounds I was excluded from attending the ‘Meet the (Mayoral) Candidates” 9 September 2010 breakfast meeting, when:

1) This breakfast meeting was publicly advertised as being open to ‘non-members’, the cost of the ticket being (excl GST): $65.00), and ‘all ages’.

2) I had ‘registered’ my interest in attending, by email, as advised by Auckland Chamber of Commerce Events Manager Rebecca Seymour-East.

3) I arrived at the event, with cash to pay for my ticket, but was excluded by Auckland Chamber of Commerce Events Manager Rebecca Seymour-East, although I had followed exactly the process she had outlined the previous day.

C) Please explain how such behaviour by staff employed by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce:

‘assist(s), promote(s) and advance(s) the interest of the commercial community participating in commerce and industry especially in the region of Auckland and generally throughout New Zealand’,

D) Please provide a copy of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce ‘Register of Interests’, where ‘senior management’ list their ‘pecuniary’ and ‘non-pecuniary’ interests, including membership of political parties.

“I’m sure there would have been some honest and decent businesspeople who would have been VERY interested in what I had to say, had the Auckland Chamber of Commerce not denied me entry,” says Auckland Mayoral Candidate Penny Bright.

The only Mayoral candidates invited to speak were the current Mayors – John Banks, Len Brown and Andrew Williams.

Ms Bright, ‘judicially-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters, was not invited to attend as either a Mayoral candidate or as a member of the audience, despite her proven track record in fighting for ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government.

Notification of this event, was emailed to Ms Bright from a friend.

“I was advised by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce Events Manager, that it was too late for me to be a ‘speaker’, and if I wished to attend, I would need to pay the same ‘non-member’ registration fee, as everyone else.

So – I followed the ‘process’ as I had been so advised, by Auckland Chamber of Commerce Events Manager, emailed to express my interest in attending, and arrived at 7.30am, 9 September 2010, with enough cash to cover the non-member $65 (+ GST) entrance fee.

(My intention was to use the opportunity to mix and mingle – (‘network’), as I have done on other occasions where, as a Mayoral candidate, I have not been given a formal opportunity to address the gathering.)

The same above-mentioned ‘Events Manager’ denied me entry – no reasons given – despite my having done exactly what she had asked of me.

How such woefully ignorant and discriminatory behaviour, by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce:

‘assist(s), promote(s) and advance(s) the interest of the commercial community participating in commerce and industry especially in the region of Auckland and generally throughout New Zealand’,

(as per Rule 2.1.3. of the THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY (INCORPORATED)

Perhaps the Directors of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce need to ensure that the good judgment of key employees in such matters is not impaired by their membership of partisan political organisations standing in these Auckland Council elections?

I have filed a formal complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

The Auckland Chamber of Commerce have picked on the wrong woman!” concluded Ms Bright.

Labour appears to have softened its stance on the newly passed Electricity Industry Bill.

The bill, which passed its final reading last night, will enact sweeping reforms in a bid to boost competitive behaviour in the electricity sector, particularly in retailing and particularly in the South Island.

Both Labour and the Greens opposed the bill, which passed on a 66 to 49 vote.

Labour pledged in a select committee minority report in June that a future Labour-led government would repeal and replace the bill “at the earliest opportunity”.

The party said it would replace the bill with a legislative framework with a more explicit focus on sustainability and affordable pricing.

Labour’s associate energy spokesman Chris Hipkins told NBR yesterday that the party had not changed its position since the minority report.

But he acknowledged that a Labour reversal of the bill would not be a “straight-out” repeal.

It was more likely that Labour would introduce a second bill to amend aspects of the legislation.

Labour’s key concerns are that the scope of the new Electricity Authority is too limited and that the bill’s transfer of the Tekapo A and B hydro stations from Meridian to Genesis will prove inefficient.

Mr Hipkins said Labour would need to “look very closely at the commercial realities” of reversing the Tekapo station asset transfer.

“But our strong feeling is that the Waitaki water system operates better as a coherent system and that having it split up doesn’t make sense.”

As a matter of priority, Labour would look at reconstituting the new Electricity Authority to a “more comprehensive oversight body” in the style of the old Electricity Commission.

The Electricity Industry Bill will dissolve the Electricity Commission and split its powers and responsibilities between a new, independent Electricity Authority, the Commerce Commission, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and Transpower.

It will formally establish a liquid electricity hedge market, allow lines companies back into the retail market, and transfer some assets between state-owned generators Meridian Energy, Genesis Energy and Mighty River Power, including the Tekapo station transfer.

A $15m fund will be set up to encourage customer switching between retailers.
Follow NBR on Twitter

Penny Bright is standing for Auckland mayor in the 2010 local body elections.

She provided this statement:

“Thank God when the Nazis invaded France – the French Resistance didn’t just wring their hands and say
“Oh well – it’s too late – we can’t do anything.”

Thoughout New Zealand towns and cities, are historically significant marble monuments dedicated to those who left in their khakhi uniforms and never came home.

Is that why 12,500 ANZACs died in Northern France and Belgium?

So the income stream from operating and managing OUR key public infrastructural water services, transport and rubbish collection could be taken over by French multinational company Veolia – without OUR consent?

Without a shot being fired – this Auckland ‘$UPERCITY is a blatant corporate raid, aimed at seizing control and privatising over $28 billion worth of Auckland regional public assets.

This has been another Rogernomic$ blitzkreig, pushed by big business, in order to run the Auckland region, ‘like a business, by business, for business’.

How business will take over is through the corporate ‘Council Controlled Organisation’ (CCO) model, into which 75% of Auckland regional rates will be paid, run by boards of unelected business appointees, over which the public have no direct control.

The other Mayoral candidates who support – or are not opposed to the CCO model – therefore support this corporate takeover.

The corporate agenda is to ‘commercialise, corporatise – then PRIVATISE these public assets through long-term leases via Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). Although the infrastructure may remain in public ownership – the income stream from operating and managing the asset will flow (usually overseas) into the banks of private shareholders.

The aim of the $upercity is to replace thousands of private ‘piggy in the middle’ snouts with fewer but bigger multinational snouts – into a bigger public trough.

This political battle isn’t between ‘left’ and ‘right’.
It’s between the corporates and the public, and those who serve their interests.

Citizens were denied our lawful right to a binding vote on the $UPERCITY as enshrined in s 24 of the Local Government Act 2002 “Reorganisational Proposal’, Schedule 3, s 49 “Polls must be held”
“a poll of electors on the proposal that that the reorganisation scheme proceed must be held in each district or region that is directly affected by the scheme.”

Since the last ‘amalgamations’ in the 1980s, when the functioning Auckland Regional Authority (ARA) and local Borough Councils were replaced with our current Councils; since ‘in-house’ Council services were replaced with the ‘contractocracy’ – since the introduction of commercialised ‘more efficient’ CCOs
– HAVE YOUR RATES GONE UP OR DOWN???

SEE! YOU WERE ‘CONNED’!

What are YOU going to say when your grandson or granddaughter asks:

“Why is Auckland is run by multinational companies?

Why does everything cost so much money?

Why are Mummy and Daddy going to shift us over to Australia?

Why didn’t people stop this Grandma? Grandad?”

[(Give) this Government the very clear message, that cannot be ignored – the people do NOT want the Auckland $upercity.

As a judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters, and an “anti-corruption campaigner” – I have researched and discovered the evidence which proves that the Auckland $UPERCITY is a corrupt corporate coup.

Big business corporate interests lobbied for the $UPERCITY, and those who politically serve their interests set up the framework, then railroaded through the legislation, in another ‘Rogernomic$ blitzkreig’ to enable the Auckland region to be run ‘like a business, by business – for business’.

The mechanism to achieve this corporate takeover is the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model, into which 75% of Auckland regional rates will be paid.

Our Auckland water services are being set up for privatisation – for eventual takeover by United Water (100% owned by Veolia Water – the world’s largest water multinational).

If Mark Ford doesn’t explain why, on HIS watch, he picked known water privatisers as key Watercare Executive staff, and openly answer questions about United Water and Veolia contracts, once I am elected Mayor in a landslide ‘anti-$UPERCITY’ protest vote – I will initiate proceedings to have him sacked forthwith as Chair of the Auckland Transport CCO.

Why? Because if Mark Ford won’t answer, in an open and transparent way, questions arising from his performance as the former CEO of Watercare, it will prove, in my considered opinion, that his empty ‘weasel words’ words about ‘transparency’ simply cannot be trusted, and he is not ‘fit for duty’.

Did you know that Watercare lied to the public on Mark Ford’s watch, saying treated water from the Waikato river was “Aa” grade at a time it was NOT?

More FACTS and EVIDENCE on this matter at Friday’s meeting!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The public did not vote for the abolition of our Councils, the establishment of the one Auckland $UPERCITY Council; the CCO model; those unelected businesspeople who have been appointed to run the CCOs.

Have there been serious ‘conflicts of interest’ in these CCO ‘selections’?

Our lawful right to a ‘binding poll’ on such a ‘reorganisation proposal’, as enshrined in the Local Government Act 2002, s24 ‘Reorganisation Proposal’, Schedule 3, s49 “Poll must be held” – was crushed by an undemocratic Parliamentary steam-roller.

(1) If a draft reorganisation scheme has been approved under clause 46, a poll of electors on the proposal that the reorganisation scheme proceed must be held in each district or region that is directly affected by the scheme.

(2) Despite subclause (1), no poll of electors must be held on a reorganisation scheme that deals solely with 1 or more of the matters listed in clause 40(2)(b), (c), or (d).

(3) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, a poll under this clause must be held under the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the provisions of that Act apply, with any necessary modifications, to the conduct of the poll.

(4) For the purposes of subclause (1), a district or region is directly affected by a reorganisation scheme if—
o

(a) the scheme provides for the abolition of that district or region; or
o

(b) the scheme provides for the union of the whole of that district or region with all or part of another or other districts or regions; or
o

(c) the scheme provides for the constitution of a new local authority whose district or region will include the whole of that district or region; or
o

(d) the scheme provides for the constitution of a new local authority whose district or region will include part of that district or region; or
o

(e) the scheme provides for the exclusion of an area from that district or region.

If you don’t defend the rights your are SUPPOSED to have – you lose them.

“The will of the people is the basis of the authority of government.’

“No taxation without representation!”

It is in defence of these basic democratic rights that I am standing for Mayor of the Auckland ($UPERCITY) Council.

Once elected – in a massive landslide ‘anti-$UPERCITY’ vote – I will initiate proceedings to help force the repeal of the underpinning legislation.

Come and hear the successes achieved to date by the direct action of citizens, (including myself) in defence of ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government!

How we played the key role in getting the rort of ‘Metrowater Charitable Payments’ phased out.

How we achieved a law change making it illegal to disconnect water services as a method of debt-enforcement.

How it is that details of ‘contracts issued’ are now available on the Auckland City Council website – when they weren’t before my one-person ‘rates$ revolt’ against Auckland City Council!

Come and hear facts and evidence you won’t hear anywhere else and my vision and plan as an effective ‘Public Watchdog’ to force the repeal of the underpinning legislation!

It’s really simple folks!

If you are opposed to the Auckland $UPERCITY and don’t vote Penny Bright for Mayor – you are wasting your vote.

NONE of the other Mayoral candidates are opposing the $UPERCITY – they have accepted it and are ‘collaborating’ with corporate interests to help make it happen, and effectively undermining any opposition or fightback.

You cannot make this corporate structure serve the public or the public interest, and those who are trying to convince you that they can, no matter how ‘well-meaning’ – are effectively trying to deceive and mislead you.

This is not ‘left’ vs ‘right’.

This is not ‘nice’ Len Brown vs ‘nasty’ John Banks.

This is ‘public’ vs ‘corporate’ – and those who serve their interests.

Thank God – when the Nazis invaded France – the French Resistance didn’t limply wring their hands and say
‘it’s too late – we can’t do anything’.

When the Nazis invaded France – whose side would YOU have been on?

The Nazi ‘collaborators’ or the French Resistance?

Without a shot being fired – this is a corporate takeover of OUR Auckland region.

The first step to stop this corporate takeover – this corrupt corporate coup – is to give this Government a message that they can’t ignore!

Just one tick in one box will do it!

Be part of the massive landslide vote against the $UPERCITY by voting Penny Bright for Mayor!

“If Mark Ford doesn’t explain why, on HIS watch, he picked known water privatisers as key Watercare Executive staff, and openly answer questions about United Water and Veolia contracts, once I am elected Mayor in a landslide ‘anti-$UPERCITY’ protest vote – I will initiate proceedings to have him sacked forthwith as Chair of the Auckland Transport CCO,” asks Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright.

“Why? Because if Mark Ford won’t answer, in an open and transparent way, questions arising from his performance as the former CEO of Watercare, it will prove, in my considered opinion, that his empty ‘weasel words’ words about ‘transparency’ simply cannot be trusted, and he is not ‘fit for duty’.

Water privatisation is a HUGE issue in this Auckland ‘$UPERCITY’ election.

The voting public have a right to know the answers to questions I publicly asked Mark Ford over two months ago.”

“Mark Ford, who will chair the mega-Auckland Transport CCO responsible for spending about $1.4 billion a year of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money, was relaxed at the possibility of public meetings being part of the statement of corporate intent between the council and the CCO.

“We have got to win over the confidence of the public.

There are various mechanisms – performance service, transparency and a whole series of things,” he said. ”

2) Who has really been in charge of Watercare Services Ltd?
The elected representatives who make up Watercare Shareholders’ Group (SRG) – or unelected Watercare Executive staff and CEO?

3)Why hasn’t former Watercare CEO, Mark Ford, replied to the following questions arising from his appointment of key water privatisers, namely – David Hawkins and Graham Wood, to strategic positions as ‘Executive’ Watercare staff members?

________________________________________

2 July 2010

Executive Chair
Auckland Transition Agency (ATA)
Mark Ford

Dear Mark,

I am very sorry that you have declined to accept the invitation to attend the Public Meeting to be held on Monday 5 July 2010, from 7.30 – 9.30pm at the Freemans Bay Community Centre, calling for an investigation of the 7 United Water New Zealand contracts.

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:06 PM, info@ata wrote:

“Thank you for your invitation which is declined.”

Mark, you may recall that I requested that if you were unable for any reason, to accept the invitation to attend the Public Meeting to be held on Monday 5 July 2010, from 7.30 – 9.30pm
at the Freemans Bay Community Centre, calling for an investigation of the 7 United Water New Zealand contracts, could you please provide the following information by 5pm Friday 2 July 2010: (which, to date, at 5.30pm 2 July 2010, you have not.)

As I would still like to have this information in writing, in order to make it available to the public and media at the above-mentioned Public Meeting, can you please confirm that you will have this OIA request completed by 12 noon Monday 5 July 2010.

Just in case you are unable for any reason to accept the invitation to attend the Public Meeting to be held on Monday 5 July 2010, from 7.30 – 9.30pm at the Freemans Bay Community Centre, calling for an investigation of the 7 United Water New Zealand contracts, can you please provide the following information by 5pm Friday 2 July 2010:

A) Information which explains why you, when CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, appointed known water privatiser, ex-Mayor of Papakura, David Hawkins, to the position of Corporate Liaison Manager for Watercare Services in 2000.

B) Information which confirms that you were aware of the Report of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), in 1998, which was critical of a number of key aspects of the ‘Papakura franchise’, signed by David Hawkins as Mayor of Papakura in April 1997:

(These shortcomings were referred to in this recent ‘Regulatory Impact Statement’

“REMOVING BARRIERS TO WATER INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 – REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT:

34. A potential risk is that councils lack expertise in the area of PPPs and other concession arrangements, and that developing such arrangements requires specialist skills. This was suggested in reports by the Auditor-General on the Papakura franchise agreement and the Wellington DBMO arrangement.[1]

35. In Papakura, for example, the Auditor-General noted that:

·the Council relied on limited internal and local expertise when setting up the agreement and it was not reviewed by an external expert;

·the franchise agreement focused on performance indicators relating to price and quality, but indicators for customer service and asset management and development were not well defined; and

·there was a lack of agreement between the parties about how the condition of the infrastructure would be measured over the duration of the franchise – no baseline was established and an asset management plan was not undertaken.

C) Information which explains why you, when CEO of Watercare Services Ltd, appointed Graham Wood, to the position of General Manager Operations of Watercare Services,(in or about 2007), and what steps you took to:

1) Inform all elected representatives that made up the Watercare Shareholders Representative Group (SRG), of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia,

2) Inform the public of Graham Wood’s former position as the former Managing Director of United Water South Australia.

D) Information which explains the role played by David Hawkins and/or Graham Wood (if any) whilst working for Watercare in the securing of any NZ United Water contracts.

E) Information which explains why, on the Watercare Services Ltd website, when you were CEO, there was no section which covered the Watercare Shareholders Group, to make the following information publicly available: SRG meeting minutes; SRG reports ; information about which elected representatives were actually members of the SRG, and the like.

F) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with:

1) United Water;
2) Veolia Water,
3) Past or current members of the World Bank, including, but not limited to David Shand, the Head of the Rates Inquiry and one of the three Commissioners on the Royal commission of Inquiry into Auckland Regional Governance

G) Disclosure of all / any interests (if any) you had or may have, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary with Veolia Transport, who have the contract with ARTA (of which you were Chair since 2007) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network.

In 2004 Veolia Transport Auckland Limited was contracted to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) to operate train services on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network. The contract has subsequently been extended through to 2014.

Veolia Transport, as a leading private operator of public transport, manage over 2.63 billion trips per year globally, thereby decreasing traffic congestion, combating climate change and avoiding over 4.1 million tons of Co2.

Veolia Transport is part of Veolia Environnement the world’s leading environmental services company.

H) Information which confirms your position, as Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency, on the request for a ‘full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts’ as requested in the following:

Petition 2008/60, presented by Su’a William Sio, on 9 December 2009:

“Requesting that the House of Representatives do not implement any legislative changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which would make it easier to privatise water services via changes to ‘contracting out’, and ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP) provisions, until a full and thorough independent investigation of the pricing practices of private water company United Water’s seven contracts in New Zealand has been undertaken.”

Of course, the preferred option would be for you, as Executive Chair of the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) to front this public meeting in person, but just in case you are unable to do so, I would like to have this information in writing to make it available to the public and media.

On the eve of the 9th anniversary of 9/11, support for the war in Afghanistan took a serious blow yesterday. Simultaneous press conferences were held in New York and Los Angeles to present startling new information refuting the official 9/11 narrative, used to justify the war.

Also announced were three major professional groups which have joined the worldwide, and ever-growing, “9/11 Truth Movement”.

In a striking show of unity, representatives of “Scientists for 9/11 Truth”, “U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth” and “Actors & Artists for 9/11 Truth” presented their findings and unveiled their eye-opening websites. Each non-profit group has launched a petition calling for a new, transparent investigation.

In NY, representing “Scientists”, Professor Niels Harrit said,
“The official account put forth by NIST violates the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry.” Harrit is Prof. Emeritus at the University of Copenhagen and was lead author for a 2009 peer-reviewed study that revealed evidence of high tech explosives throughout the WTC dust.

In LA, physics teacher David Chandler discussed the swift destruction of the WTC towers, including Building 7, the little-known third tower. Having demonstrated its free fall, he confronted the US government agency NIST with his analyses and forced NIST to revise its November 2008 Final Report on WTC 7. NIST’s Draft Report had claimed free fall was impossible but NIST ultimately acknowledged WTC 7 was in absolute free fall for over two seconds. Concluded Chandler, “Free fall is physically impossible without explosives”.

In LA, former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development Lt. Col. Robert Bowman stated,

“9/11 has been an excuse to use our brave young troops as cannon fodder in unjust wars of aggression”.

In LA, actor John Heard asked,
“How is it possible that the worst crime in U.S. history has never been properly investigated?”

In NY, actor Daniel Sunjata stated,
“The August 20th AP poll has revealed that only 38% of the American people support the war in Afghanistan, down from 46% in March. The question is: does this 38% know about the evidence that we have presented today? Signatories to their petition include Ed Asner, Graham Nash, Willie Nelson, Michelle Phillips and Gore Vidal.

The three groups at the websites below are independent, non-profit organizations calling for the reinvestigation of the September 11th attacks. These groups have no affiliation to any political party.

“I’m sure there would have been some honest and decent businesspeople who would have been VERY interested in what I had to say, had the Auckland Chamber of Commerce not denied me entry,” says Auckland Mayoral Candidate Penny Bright.

The only Mayoral candidates invited to speak were the current Mayors – John Banks, Len Brown and Andrew Williams.

Ms Bright, ‘judicially-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters, was not invited to attend as either a Mayoral candidate or as a member of the audience, despite her proven track record in fighting for ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government.

Notification of this event, was emailed to Ms Bright from a friend.

“I was advised by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce Events Manager, that it was too late for me to be a ‘speaker’, and if I wished to attend, I would need to pay the same ‘non-member’ registration fee, as everyone else.

So – I followed the ‘process’ as I had been so advised, by Auckland Chamber of Commerce Events Manager, emailed to express my interest in attending, and arrived at 7.30am, 9 September 2010, with enough cash to cover the non-member $65 (+ GST) entrance fee.

(My intention was to use the opportunity to mix and mingle – (‘network’), as I have done on other occasions where, as a Mayoral candidate, I have not been given a formal opportunity to address the gathering.)

The same above-mentioned ‘Events Manager’ denied me entry – no reasons given – despite my having done exactly what she had asked of me.

How such woefully ignorant and discriminatory behaviour, by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce:

‘assist(s), promote(s) and advance(s) the interest of the commercial community participating in commerce and industry especially in the region of Auckland and generally throughout New Zealand’,

(as per Rule 2.1.3. of the THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY (INCORPORATED)

Perhaps the Directors of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce need to ensure that the good judgment of key employees in such matters is not impaired by their membership of partisan political organisations standing in these Auckland Council elections?

I have filed a formal complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

The Auckland Chamber of Commerce have picked on the wrong woman!” concluded Ms Bright.

$470m+ major construction work tendering in August
Jazial Crossley | Friday September 10, 2010 – 08:23am

Major construction projects worth more than $470 million were put out to tender in August.

The latest report from construction industry research company Pacifecon details private and public projects in the pipeline at tender stage.

In the upper North Island, $10 million was the estimated construction cost for a temporary restaurant at Eden Park for Rugby Travel & Hospitality out to tender.

Whangarei Hospital had the $25 million first stage of its redevelopment out to tender and the University of Auckland was tendering a $10-$15 million new building called Building 206.

In the Lower North Island Upper Hutt College was tendering a $20 million staged redevelopment, Progressive had a $15-$20 million new Countdown supermarket in Wellington’s Newtown.

In the South Island Dunedin City Council had stage two of its $64.5 million Tahuna Wastewater treatment plant project out to tender and the third stage of Otago Settlers Museum at $5 million.
________________________________________________________________________________—
Comments
This is what the $UPERCITY is really all about – CONTRACTS.

The word is getting out.

Information which proves how the $UPERCITY is a corrupt corporate coup, aimed at running the Auckland region ‘like a business – by business – for business’ is spreading far and wide.

Not every business in Auckland, however, has their snout in the council contracting trough.

I’m sure there would have been some honest and decent businesspeople who would have been VERY interested in what I had to say,had the Auckland Chamber of Commerce not denied me entry to their ‘Meet the (Mayoral) Candidates’ breakfast meeting, Thursday 9 September at the Heritage Hotel.

The only Mayoral candidates invited to speak were the current Mayors – John Banks, Len Brown and Andrew Williams.

I was not invited to attend as either a Mayoral candidate or as a member of the audience.

A friend forwarded me an email, notifying me of the event, which I immediately followed up.

I was advised by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce Events Manager,that it was too late for me to be a ‘speaker’, and if I wished to attend, I would need to pay the same ‘non-member’ registration fee, as everyone else.

So – I followed the ‘process’ as I had been so advised, by Auckland Chamber of Commerce Events Manager, emailed to advise my interest in attending, and arrived at 7.30am, 9 September 2010, with enough cash to cover the non-member $65 (+ GST) entrance fee.

I was denied entry by the same above-mentioned ‘Events Manager’ – no reasons given – despite having done exactly what had been asked of me.

How DISGRACEFUL is that?

What sort of ‘mickey mouse’ / ”discriminatory’ outfit is this Auckland Chamber of Commerce?

I have filed a formal complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

Perhaps those in leadership positions at the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, need to be a little clearer about their roles, in order to carry out their responsibilities in a ‘fair and proper way’?

Perhaps the interests of organisations like the Auckland Chamber of Commerce would be better served if those in key leadership positions were politically independent from parties or organisations running for public office in this current election?

About

Through my involvement with this group I have become a Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater and Auckland regional governance matters.

I have also been publicly acknowledged as an “Anti-corruption campaigner”.
I have started my blog so that those who are not on the email can access the information .

I was an Auckland Mayoral candidate – standing to help STOP THE $UPERCITY – the corporate takeover of the Auckland region, which has been forced upon the public majority without our lawful consent through a ‘binding poll’.

I stood in the Botany by-election as an independent candidate, on an anti-corruption / pro-transparency, anti-privatisation/asset sale platform.

I believe that is is high time that NZ got our ‘House’ in order, and established the legislative framework to prevent and fight corruption, and ensure genuine transparency and accountability in local and central government and within the judiciary.

I am currently standing in the Auckland Council Howick Ward by-election on the following ‘platform’:

NO RATE$ INCREASES!

CUT OUT THE CONSULTANTS AND THE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!

OPEN THE BOOKS!

GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE CONTRACTORS; SCOPE, TERM AND VALUE OF THE CONTRACTS!

BRING BACK COUNCIL WORKS DEPARTMENTS!

PROVIDE COUNCIL SERVICES ‘IN-HOUSE’ AND CUT OUT ALL THOSE PRIVATE ‘PIGGIES -IN -THE -MIDDLE’!

If private sector provision is SO ‘efficient’ – then how come over the last 20 years rates have gone up – not down?)